Responding here to this “thread” title (in “links”), these two phrases, “female human rights” and “Muslim cultures” are in many instances mutually exclusive.

Context: The most populous “Muslim” nation, Indonesia, in its key document affirms its creation and status as a non-Muslim nation. Perhaps that’s why Indonesia seems not a breeding ground for Islamafascist terrorist murderers.

In stark contrast, “Muslim” nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia intentionally deny unalienable human rights to females. The intentional tolerance of this female-enslaving culture in Western nations, carried out under the guise of “multiculturalism”, sows seeds for the destruction of these nations’ democracies from within. To tolerate evil is to support evil, whether that evil be “secular”, “religious”, or “cultural.”

Snowyflake is “on it”, committed to doing all she knows how to do to break the chains of slavery which allow Muslim women in “Muslim” nations to be raped, tortured, hacked into pieces, executed by hit squads on the streets (a common taliban action), tortured, imprisoned in their own homes and in state-supported prisons, stoned to death, and subjected to other nearly unspeakable and unconscionable acts of state-endorsed violence.

stu wrote:Very true Bellatori, but do you not think that the muslem men do treat their women as second class citizens, having to walk behind them etc,and endure regular beatings at the hands of their husbands?

Many apologists for Islam point out that these things are not in the Quran. They also point out that, again, many of those things we associate with Islam, are in fact cultural e.g. Burka. Unfortunately the underprivileged and the less well educated cannot make that distinction and, of course, groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda , do not think there is a distinction anyway. The end result is that 'nice' Muslims say one thing and the rest of the Islamic world is trying to put the non-Islamic world to the sword .

stu wrote:When it comes to the human rights for females in muslim countries I am afraid the answer is nil. the females are used as second class citizens in whatever they do. They are regularly beaten black and blue, why do you think they have to wear the clothing they do? The males are bought up that way from a very young age, and it will never change Im afraid, they are just barbaric.

WELL that is the first time I have been called anything so remotely racist as a Paki-basher, what disgusting terminology you use oftenwrong. So you think that the way muslem men treat their females, is totally and utterly acceptable do you? judging by your racist tone in your post, it seems to me it is you that has a problem to overcome is it not?

stu wrote:So you think that the way muslem men treat their females, is totally and utterly acceptable do you?

Of course the way some Muslim men treat women is not acceptable. It has to do with their religious ideology, not their race. oftenwrong doesn't seem to know the difference between a religion and a race. Perhaps he can explain what seemed like a rather offensive remark, I may have misunderstood.

stu wrote:When it comes to the human rights for females in muslim countries I am afraid the answer is nil. the females are used as second class citizens in whatever they do. They are regularly beaten black and blue, why do you think they have to wear the clothing they do? The males are bought up that way from a very young age, and it will never change Im afraid, they are just barbaric.

The Paki-bashers have crawled out of the woodwork again.

Hi oftenwrong, you're way off on this one, stu has never said anything racist I'm aware of, and he was in fairness criticising a religion, and it's influences, not the people under it's influence per se.

stu wrote:Shirina is someone in your honest opinion, being racist when they call somebody a paki-basher? when the person only said that it was utterly disgraceful the way some muslem men treat their females

No, I don't think being called a "paki-basher" is a racist remark as it isn't saying anything derogatory about anyone's race. And "paki" or "Pakistani" isn't a race, either. It's a nationality. Loosely speaking, I generally don't moderate posts that criticize nationalities (I've dealt with enough American-bashing here), but I would step in if the "bashing" became merely gratuitous and without a real premise. In other words, bashing just to bash is something I really don't care for about any subject.

To get back on topic, the widespread abuses of women throughout Islam brings shame on their religion, and it's very telling that whenever the subject is raised theists unfairly try to label the people justly protesting against Islam's appalling record in this and other areas egregiously as racist. This video is not for the faint-hearted, and adequately demonstrates the appalling treatment of women in Islamic countries.

What bothers me after watching videos like this is the amount of apathy people here in the West can have. This goes double for cultural apologists who feel that one culture has no right to interfere in another. I'm all for that notion when it comes to harmless customs, but those customs which clearly violate what any sensible person would consider "human rights," I think we have a duty to intervene.

One misconception people seem to have is that those who live within a specific culture are all freely participating in it; this is the culture they decided to have. Of course, this would be akin to saying that the Jews freely participated in the Holocaust.

We in the West have been gifted with an enormous amount of rights and I sometimes think we take that for granted. We simply do not understand the terror one would feel living under tyranical rule. We cannot "understand" it, we cannot even empathize as we have never really experienced it. That, unfortunately, allows us to dismiss it when we see it happening elsewhere; we can feel smugly righteous thinking non-interference is morally superior to stopping that which is morally wrong.

How do I know it is morally wrong? Because we are all human beings whether Muslim or Christian, male or female. And AS a human being, I know that NO ONE wants to be flogged and lashed in the street, no one wants to be stoned to death, no one wants to be forced to marry her rapist, or be burned to death in a fire because she ran from a burning building without the proper head covering. No one wants to be terrorized, to live in fear, or to be treated as a 2nd or even 3rd class citizen. Therefore, when I watch a video showing a woman being whipped for simply wearing pants, I know, as a human being, that such a punishment represents terror rather than rehabilitation. And for what? She isn't being whipped because she stole something or because she lied about something important or whatnot. No, she's being flogged because she wore pants. We in the West take the freedom to wear pants for granted - and we also take for granted the knowledge that even if we weren't allowed and got caught, the most that would happen would be a fine or a few days in jail. Not a beating that will most likely leave scars for the rest of her life.

Shirina wrote:What bothers me after watching videos like this is the amount of apathy people here in the West can have. This goes double for cultural apologists who feel that one culture has no right to interfere in another. I'm all for that notion when it comes to harmless customs, but those customs which clearly violate what any sensible person would consider "human rights," I think we have a duty to intervene.

One misconception people seem to have is that those who live within a specific culture are all freely participating in it; this is the culture they decided to have. Of course, this would be akin to saying that the Jews freely participated in the Holocaust.

We in the West have been gifted with an enormous amount of rights and I sometimes think we take that for granted. We simply do not understand the terror one would feel living under tyranical rule. We cannot "understand" it, we cannot even empathize as we have never really experienced it. That, unfortunately, allows us to dismiss it when we see it happening elsewhere; we can feel smugly righteous thinking non-interference is morally superior to stopping that which is morally wrong.

How do I know it is morally wrong? Because we are all human beings whether Muslim or Christian, male or female. And AS a human being, I know that NO ONE wants to be flogged and lashed in the street, no one wants to be stoned to death, no one wants to be forced to marry her rapist, or be burned to death in a fire because she ran from a burning building without the proper head covering. No one wants to be terrorized, to live in fear, or to be treated as a 2nd or even 3rd class citizen. Therefore, when I watch a video showing a woman being whipped for simply wearing pants, I know, as a human being, that such a punishment represents terror rather than rehabilitation. And for what? She isn't being whipped because she stole something or because she lied about something important or whatnot. No, she's being flogged because she wore pants. We in the West take the freedom to wear pants for granted - and we also take for granted the knowledge that even if we weren't allowed and got caught, the most that would happen would be a fine or a few days in jail. Not a beating that will most likely leave scars for the rest of her life.

that video is not for the faint hearted, it was truly nauseating to hear that girl scream and beg for her mother. No sane objective person could defend any world view that permitted, let alone condoned or even encouraged such egregious behaviour. I'll be interested to see Cusick's response given his defence of Islam's treatment of women.